Document pevmeMzNJQmGM2RqaLRJJNr67

Monsanto rC iNiit ,oC.>.ow. p> E> 3ureau _ lg70 _ 2660 OAT( June 25, 1981 Springfield Mortality Study ec F. E. Kearney - E2SA J L. Shriver TO W. R. Gaffey - G2WE After thorough review of G. Marsh's Supplemental Report of the Springfield Plant Mortality Study, significant concerns, corrections and questions were generated with regard to accuracy of information and the manner in which it might have been presented. For simplicity, the following summarizes our comments on a page by page basis. Also, Springfield's thoughts regarding an action plan are included. Concerns Page 1 - first paragraph 1) reference to Springfield being a "chemical plant" is misleading, it should be referred to as a "plastics producing plant." 2) the plant is located in Springfield - not "near" Page 1 - second paragraph 1) reference to "activist group" is unnecessary and gives an impression of coercion to initiate subsequent study. 2) the 86 death certificates were not selected on a random basis as inferred but, rather, purposely because they proved their hypothesis. Page 4 - first paragraph typo - "duration r employment" - "or" should be "of" Page 4 - second paragraph 1) "a partial list" should be rewritten to read "a list of major finished goods" 2) reference to formaldehyde and formalin is redundant - only formalin should be used. 3) reference to VC products should be more accurately written as "vinyl chloride polymers, including polyvinyl chloride products" is . to *(y i' ?I gSV 0007553 W. R. Gaffey - G2WE 2- - June 25, 1981 Page 10 - second paragraph would like to see second sentence rewritten Eor clarity, e.g., "It is most probable that workers studied in this report were exposed to a variety of chemicals rather than a single agent." Page 11 - second paragraph rewrite second sentence to say chat "information does not exist on the intensity or extent of various chemical exposures which occurred within the 21 OEC's" Page 31 - first paragraph we need to establish the who, when and how. Further work will be done before the final report is issued. Page 36 - #27 C. S. Winfield's correct title is Manager of Industrial Hygiene, she is not a hygienist. Page 74-75 1) Work histories of personnel are not complete as they do not extend back to hire dates. Novhere Is this explained. This selective excerpt of the work history gives a skewed and misleading Impression of the person's work history and exposure. 2) In Appendix E, note that Case 2 was employed in Dept. 62 from 1963 until retirement. Dept. 62 was a Styrene Polymerization area completely, not a Polystyrene Processing area and, therefore, had no exposure to cadmium or any other heavy metal. (This is a major error in the report and needs to be recalculated for significance as it may change the conclusion of cadmium exposure and prostatlc cancer.) When Springfield personnel collapsed the original 120 departments into the 21 OEC's, that G. Marsh uses in this report. Dept. 62 was mistakenly placed into OEC II rather than correctly in OEC I. The mistake was not noted until the study calculations were completed whereupon G. Marsh was informed of the error prior to writing the draft final report. One additional point need to be made. If Polystyrene Processing Indeed had a higher incidence of prostatlc cancer, then wouldn't one expect to find a similar relationship in PVC Processing (OECIV)? PVC Processing used many of the same heavy metal colorants in a similar fashion, in addition to a variety of heavy metal stabilizers that Polystyrene did not use. RSV 0007554 W. R. Gaffey - G2WE -3- June 25, 1981 Page -54 - Table 14 Is the odds ratio for OEC XII significant? Recommended Action 1) G. Harsh should be advised in writing of receipt of his "draft final report" and that appropriate people are reviewing this for accuracy. 2) Monsanto's comments with be resolved with Gary M should 3) Plans should be established for a subsequent and continuing study looking specifically at prostatic cancers to determine if that relationship holds or to look at others if appropriate. 4) A communications approach must be developed for the Union, Plant Personnel, Government and Community to Include: a. A letter to appropriate state and federal governmental organizations. b. A meeting with the Union by plant management to explain the findings. c. A bulletin board notice for plantvlde use at Springfield signed by DMEH. d. A special Monsanto DMEH Communication. e. A press release to the major Springfield newspapers and other media. hbl P. E. Bureau ASV 0007555